Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowA feud between the General Assembly and the Indiana Gaming Commission escalated late Friday when lawmakers approved language blocking the commission from getting more money without their approval.
It also directs casino fines and penalty money to the state’s coffers, instead of the agency’s.
“I think this is an attempt to strangle an effective regulatory agency on behalf of an industry that right now is embroiled in scandal,” said Rep. Matt Pierce, D-Bloomington. “And I think it’s outrageous for this bill to be moving forward.”
Another member said Republicans are “defunding the gaming police.”
The House approved the bill 57-39 and the Senate 45-2.
The language says the commission’s budget cannot be augmented by the state budget agency, state board of finance or any other source without approval from the State Budget Committee.
That committee is made up of four voting lawmakers and the state budget director.
Under current law, augmentation — or increased spending authorization — can be approved by the governor’s administration without legislative involvement.
The move comes after Sen. Chris Garten, R-Charlestown, had a public spat with the commission over the interim. He accused the agency of being too aggressive in regulating casinos and imposing fines for violations.
Pierce pointed out one former lawmaker is currently headed to prison for his involvement in a casino bribery scandal and legislative leaders said gaming legislation would be paused this year.
But this language, which passed the Senate but was never heard by the full Indiana House, was added back into Senate Bill 256 in a final conference committee report.
Pierce argued that it doesn’t make sense to take flexibility away from a commission charged with regulating the gaming industry.
“This is going to create an opportunity for corruption,” he said.
But Rep. Ben Smaltz, chairman of the House Rules Committee, said what Pierce dubbed “choking or strangling” the agency, he sees as “additional oversight.”
“I don’t see that this is going to make it so the industry is going to be able to pull the wool over anybody’s eyes,” he added.
Rep. Ryan Dvorak, D-South Bend, asked Rep. Jeff Thompson – author of the bill – why the language was necessary for one specific agency.
“Is there reason for us to not trust the agency is appropriately doing enforcement actions?” he asked.
Thompson, R-Lizton, said he thinks it’s appropriate for legislators to have oversight “with the kind of dollars they receive.”
He added that the budget committee meets around every 60 days, and that timeline is agile enough if the commission needs to ask for more money for enforcement.
The Indiana Capital Chronicle is an independent, not-for-profit news organization that covers state government, policy and elections.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Indiana Republicans have wonderful priorities.
Sounds like the proponents of the law are already corrupt
bought & paid.
We should never have legalized the casinos or sports books.
It seems as if some lawmakers would like a heads-up if a major investigation is pending and the State Commission needs more funding. The fact that it didn’t pass the House is a real issue.
two sides to every argument. Better one for the proponents of this one would have been it prevents the Gaming Commission from assessing fines and penalties just to increase their budget. This practice was rampant with prosecutors and law enforcement and the seizure of assets relating to drug sales.
If an executive commission or body, or a prosecutor or police force, generates funding from enforcing the laws, the money should go to the general fund, and not the office kitty. Let the entity go to the State Budget Committee or county equivalent for more funding.
So you mean to tell us the same legislators who sat on their hands when it comes to asset sales that benefited local police (which got their hands slapped with a Supreme Court case) suddenly found religion on the matter when it comes to casinos that just so happen to be donors to their legislative campaigns and just so happen to have gotten in trouble with illegal donations to multiple legislators and casino projects.
And that is just simply impossible that a legislator is going to lower the boom on enforcement of a Indiana’s gambling laws, then end up miraculously leaving the Legislature and coincidentally ending up with a cushy six figure job with a casino.
https://indianacapitalchronicle.com/2023/12/20/get-your-house-in-order-lawmakers-admonish-gambling-regulation-agency-which-defends-processes/
I said nothing of the kind. I said it was better public policy, and the Supreme Court case you mention agreed.
There is no argument Indiana’s ethically-challenged politicians have been the beneficiaries of gambling interests, both in terms of political contributions and post-government jobs. The resolution of those issues lies in better conflict of interest and post-legislative employment restrictions, as are seen in many states, not in having fines and penalties paid to a quasi-policing entity. That would be the SC case all over, wouldn’t it?
But setting up a Gambling Czar at the Gaming Commission who is vested with the ability to generate substantial funds by questionable fines and penalties is not the best answer. Who or what would keep him or her from imposing fines, or refusing to do so, based on political considerations? From looking the other way when a mentor legislator calls and says to not impose big fines.
Well, based on the current situation, what’s happening is exactly your fear – because casino operators don’t like the laws being enforced against them, they’ve called in state legislators who have made the message quite clear to the regulators- stop going after casinos or we will shut you down.
The noise about where the money goes is just sleight of hand … and, as noted, a lovely way to let legislators shut down “too much” enforcement.
We will never get better cooling off or conflict of interest laws. looking the other way on an industry that ignores the law that tells them to leave alone people who have told the state of Indiana “don’t let me in a casino for my own good” is a terrible idea.